<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>I am the man who will fight for your honour &#187; generic and uninspired posting</title>
	<atom:link href="http://iwannaspankjenniferlovehewitt.com/archives/category/generic-and-uninspired-posting/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://iwannaspankjenniferlovehewitt.com</link>
	<description>rock on</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 02:58:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>On Diarrhœa</title>
		<link>http://iwannaspankjenniferlovehewitt.com/archives/83</link>
		<comments>http://iwannaspankjenniferlovehewitt.com/archives/83#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Mar 2006 00:09:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>shawn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[generic and uninspired posting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://iwannaspankjenniferlovehewitt.com/?p=83</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So I was reading about Jenny McCarthy's epic, Shakespearean in magnitude, yet ultimately futile efforts to not <a href="http://www.thesuperficial.com/archives/2006/03/01/jenny_mccarthy_has_public_diar.html">crap all over the floor</a>, when I began to contemplate the word diarrhea.  It looked odd to me, spelled that way.  I much prefer the fancy-lad spelling  diarrhœa.  Needing to know the correct spelling of diarrhœa, I consulted Volume IV (Creel-Duzepere) of the <em>OED</em>.  What I found knocked my socks off.  Or it would have, if I had been wearing socks.  (I prefer sandals and socklessness.)  Here's the definition for diarrhœa:<blockquote>A disorder consisting in the too frequent evacuation of too fluid fæces, sometimes attended with griping pains.</blockquote>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So I was reading about Jenny McCarthy&#8217;s epic, Shakespearean in magnitude, yet ultimately futile efforts to not <a href="http://www.thesuperficial.com/archives/2006/03/01/jenny_mccarthy_has_public_diar.html">crap all over the floor</a>, when I began to contemplate the word diarrhea.  It looked odd to me, spelled that way.  I much prefer the fancy-lad spelling  diarrhœa.  Needing to know the correct spelling of diarrhœa, I consulted Volume IV (Creel-Duzepere) of the <em>OED</em>.  What I found knocked my socks off.  Or it would have, if I had been wearing socks.  (I prefer sandals and socklessness.)  Here&#8217;s the definition for diarrhœa:<br />
<blockquote>A disorder consisting in the too frequent evacuation of too fluid fæces, sometimes attended with griping pains.</p></blockquote>
<p>That is, my faithless idiot readers, quite possibly the best definition of any word that I have ever encountered.  Ignoring for the moment the awesomeness of the fancy-lad spelling of poop as &#8216;fæces&#8217;, the <em>OED</em>&#8216;s definition of diarrhœa is a succinct and visceral description of an act that is all too familiar to those of us who spend $116 a month eating Burger King and Panda Express.  My only quibble is the &#8220;sometimes attended with&#8221; qualification.  Diarrhœa hurts.  It&#8217;s like the poop is trying to burn it&#8217;s way out.</p>
<p>But, in typical <em>OED</em> fashion, there&#8217;s much more to the diarrhœa entry than just the definition.  The entry also gives an example of diarrhœa as it was defined in 1866:<br />
<blockquote>The term diarrhœa is used to denote the morbid frequency of intestinal dejections which are, also, liquid or morbidly soft, and often otherwise altered in character.</p></blockquote>
<p>Ignoring for the moment the egghead spelling of poop as &#8216;intestinal dejections&#8217;, it&#8217;s vividly clear that, even in 1866, people were terrified of diarrhœa.  And with good reason.  Without grape Kool-Aid and a wide variety of flavoured waters to keep them properly hydrated, the average 1866 person simply could not handle the loss of fluids that comes with taking a huge diarrhœa crap.  But even though they couldn&#8217;t make Kool-Aid, those 1866ers knew how to describe a crap.  It might not be as direct and descriptive as the official <em>OED</em> definition of diarrhœa, but describing diarrhœa as &#8220;otherwise altered in character&#8221; is spot on.</p>
<p>Diarrhœa is crap&#8217;s evil twin.  Everyone loves a good crap.  It really takes a load off, leaving you feeling refreshed and unburdened.  No one likes diarrhœa.  And instead of the peaceful euphoria that follows a huge dump, diarrhœa leaves only pain and trepidation.  Diarrhœa crap is like a bag of Lays potato chips: you can&#8217;t eat just one.  No wait, that&#8217;s not right.  Diarrhœa is more like Pringles: once you pop, you can&#8217;t stop.  There is no post-dump serenity with diarrhœa, only more diarrhœa.  And then, when you&#8217;ve finally squirted out the last remains of that seafood boli, you have to clean the splatters off your toilet.  No one likes cleaning diarrhœa splatters.</p>
<p>In conclusion, the <em>OED</em> rocks, diarrhœa is no fun for anyone and Jenny McCarthy is a talentless skank, albeit a talentless skank who apparently has no problem with taking a dump on the floor.  Would that I could be so free with my stool.  One of these days, I&#8217;m going to follow Miss McCarthy&#8217;s shining example and just take a huge dump right on the floor of Aéropostale.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://iwannaspankjenniferlovehewitt.com/archives/83/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
